Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!rutgers!deimos.cis.ksu.edu!uxc!garcon!uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu!mcdaniel
From: mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (Tim McDaniel)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c++
Subject: Re: Eiffel vs. C++
Summary: Scott Simpson has judged without the facts
Message-ID: <1265@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu>
Date: 16 Jun 89 05:45:01 GMT
References: <2689@ssc-vax.UUCP> <151@eiffel.UUCP> <9438@alice.UUCP> <5027@wiley.UUCP>
Sender: news@garcon.cso.uiuc.edu
Reply-To: mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu (Tim McDaniel)
Organization: Center for Supercomputing R&D (Cedar), U. of Ill.
Lines: 62

In article <9438@alice.UUCP> bs@alice.UUCP (Bjarne Stroustrup) writes:
=Bertrand Meyer, president of Interactive Software Engineering, the
=supplier of Eiffel, is correct on one point:  I did refuse to appear on
=a panel with him.  My reasons are personal.  He has insulted my friends

In article <5027@wiley.UUCP> simpson@poseidon.UUCP (Scott Simpson) writes:
>This is censorship and this sucks.

What nonsense!  Too often, people think "censorship" means "the
organizers/owners didn't let me give my point of view".  Censorship
involves a GOVERNMENT official who has the power to PENALIZE speech
(etc.).  The capitalized words are the important ones.

Within extremely broad limits (such as slander, libel, national
security), if I own a newspaper, or own a radio station, or set up a
conference or party or discussion or debate, I can bloody well do
whatever I want!  If I set up a debate on, say, evolution, I don't
have to invite creationists or evolutionists if I don't want to, or
invite any particular person or set of people, because it's MY debate
and I have control.  "Freedom of the press belongs to the one who owns
the press."

Bjarne Stroustrup had a complete right to ask any conditions he wanted
for appearance, from unconditional acceptance to unconditional
refusal.  Similarly for Bertrand Meyer.  But it's OOPSLA's show, and
they have the final right to say who will speak and how.  Any
negotiations are between the three of them.  If a government official
had intervened (say, idiotic fright about foreign nationals learning
the secrets of object-oriented programming), THEN it would be
censorship.

>I would have kicked you [Stroustrup] off the panel.

Perhaps.  If I, the producer of a TV talk show, can have A or B but
not both, I have to judge for myself which one I want.  In the OOPSLA
case, I'd want to find out: (a) if it is manifest that one of the two
would contribute far more to the panel, (b) what kind of public
insults, falsehoods, and out-of-context quotations Meyer has actually
delivered or is likely to deliver.

*IF* Stroustrup has demonstrated in previous conferences an effort to
have technical discussions while Meyer has indulged in grossly
unprofessional insults and misrepresentations, it would certainly tell
very heavily against Meyer.  *IF* these allegations are clearly true
AND as serious as Stroustrup says, THEN it would be unfair to have
Meyer on the panel.  *IF* these allegations are clearly false or
frivolous, it would be just as unfair to have Stroustrup on the panel.
But I don't have any information to decide this case, and I suspect
Scott Simpson doesn't either.  If OOPSLA didn't have the information
either, their behaviour was unjust.

>Am I the only one who finds this behavior reprehensible?

I certainly hope so!
--
"Let me control a planet's oxygen supply, and I don't care who makes
the laws." - GREAT CTHUHLU'S STARRY WISDOM BAND (via Roger Leroux)
 __
   \         Tim, the Bizarre and Oddly-Dressed Enchanter
    \               mcdaniel@uicsrd.csrd.uiuc.edu
    /\       mcdaniel%uicsrd@{uxc.cso.uiuc.edu,uiuc.csnet}
  _/  \_     {uunet,convex,pur-ee}!uiucuxc!uicsrd!mcdaniel